High Court
Case Details
--•aP '^s^, •Hiri<»W» ^: ^"i •i^"w' ' -^- •- -I; JN IHB BIC3B G.OUa OE' JT3&ieA'£BRB ; AI JABASPITB. . ^fiIMIHAI, BBYISIOM BO.^^^iseg,? ___ <3q^ 3;D/J/L '"'^'^ t. Madan s/o SBBaran, aged 24 years, OseapattoQ Govt. Servant Ii.B.Ct.^_Bl®8k Offioe, Rariiarpur, ^/e Maakesari, P.S. Kaaker, Sistt. Bastar (H?). 2. paraeQara s/o K.erallanl;, aged 24 years, - UaeEiploye<l,^Vo .liaBkesari, Poliae Statien KsQSer, &istrie-& Bastar (MP). r tfBLIGAHIS (.©BBAIL,)- Vs. State of MaeUiyaPradesh BQB-ABBiKSAS. AEEIi^GAII^ S»EB S,BG2IOH ,38^,8? ,rgg_G®S QS SBIMIB&I. PB8G®UBEF©B 6B&n OF BAIL..
Legal Reasoning
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.No.910/2012 ,.BV{ ^ ^^ ^¥' .^^•f ^y^^ APPELLANT Madan -Versus- RESPONDENT: State of Chhattisgarh Present !>.'
Legal Reasoning
Shri Vishnu Koshta, counsel for the Applicant---... Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Goutam Bhaduri J. ORALJUDGMENT (01-11-2013) 1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 10.02.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kanker (C.G) in Sessions Trial No.219/1993 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 323 read with section 34 IPC and sentenced to -) undergo R.l. for 3 months. During the pendency of this appeal, Appellant i^" •A No.2 Parmendra has died, therefore, the appeal against him has abated. Since ^|ie conviction and sentence under challenge in this appeal is with respect to offence u/s 323 IPC, this Court is confined to discuss the evidence only to the extent of offence u/s 323 IPC and to find outwhether sufficient evidence exists to convict this appellant under this section. 2. Initially the trial commenced under sections 302, 452, 294, 323, 506/34 IPC against 4 accused persons namely Krishna, Madan (present appellantgParmendra and Rakesh in Sessions Trial No.219/1993. 3. According to the prosecution, on the date of incident, there a quarrel took place on 29.12.1992 at village Mankesari in the house of Dayaram Mahar from where accused Praveen @ Parmendra was coming. Jayendra, son of Mahadeo thecomplainant, greeted Parmendra on the eve of Christmas (Badadin). On this, Parmendra asked deceased Jayendra to go -3-- $4 back to his home, otherwise,he will be beaten by him. At that '' "''%-.x''""' "•••—•——' ,,.,<ij>~ K.', time, Mahadeo came there. In the meantime;-a<^ii.l§ed Parmendra, Krishna, Rakesh and present appellant Madan, all thgy^td'jointly abused ffsy^- { and beaten Mahadev (P.W.6) and his son. Here one part of the inddent stops. The subsequent incident is that deceased Jayendra went inside the house and soon after, all the 4 accused entered into the house and assaulted Jayendra. Out of fear, Mahadev fled from the scene. Thereafter the accused poured Kerosene oil on Jayendra and burnt him. 4. Learned trial Courtafter hearing both the parties and on evaluating the evidence on record has acquitted accused Krishna and Rakesh ofall the charges whereas while acquitting the present appellant Madan and Parmendra u/ss 302/34 &^t52 IPC, convicted them under section 323/34 IPC. The learned trial Court while convicting both the appellants Madan and Parmendra u/s 323/34 IPC, held that there is evidence adduced by P.W.6 Mahadeo against both the appellants and therefore, the conviction was made under Section 323/34 IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the. appellant has assailed the judgment of the TrialCourt and submitted that the findings arrived at by the court below is ..^ ^' perverse in respect of present appellant Madan since the other accused Partmendra @ Praveen has breathed his last. He would submit that the f^ »' •rt incident took place in two parts. The first part is confined to beating by the accused while the other part is confined to beating of complainant's son and causing him burn injuries. Assailing theevidence offindings under Section 323 IPC, he would submit that there is direct exclusion of name of Madan, therefore, in any case, he cannot beheld liable for the offence. ^ On the contrary, 6. learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the same and relied on documents and evidence and would submit that the judgmeot is well merited which do not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 8. The ingredients of Section 323 is based on the statement of P.W.6 ^^:%. ^•' -3- ^ Mahadeo who in his statement has stated that on the date of incident, his •.,'!fr son Jayant had gone to the house of his neighbour narF(&iy..Ramchandra f'^y^ { and while he was returning from the house'of saidaRNiftghandra, this witness saw from outside his house that that all the four accused followed his son and one of the accused Praveen @ Parmendra asked his son to go back to his house, otherwise, he would get severe beating. On this, he intervened and tried to convince the four accused. hle got his son entered in the house and shut the door, but the accused by force pushed and opened Jt <= the door, intruded the house and started beating his son; When he came to the rescueof his son, he was also beaten by all the accused by fists and kicks. He stated that accused Krishna had thrown him on the ground and pulled him by his legs andat-that time, Praven, Rakesh, Krishna all started beating and the present appellant Madan took out Tang; from the house of this witness and all the accused threatened to kill him. The witness further stated that out of fear, he ran away from the spot. This witness further says that when he came back, he saw his son lying on the floor with burn injuries. When he asked his son, he told that all the four accused have poured kerosene and burnt him. The learned Court below however acquitted the ^ accused u/s 302/34, 452 IPC. ft' ^Now, 9. if para 10 of the statement of P.W.6 is further perused, this •A accused has categorically stated that except Madan, 3 accused Rakesh, Krishna and Praveen had assaulted. Therefore, by such specific statement, he has exonerated the allegations against this accused appellant. 10. Undoubtedly, no body has seen the incident except P.W.6. On close scmtiny.o.f evidence of P.W.6, it dearly demonstrates that though there was ^ an assault but accused Madan has not assaulted. In view of the clear admission and exoneration by P.W.6 who is victim itself, the accusations and allegations against the present appellant cannot be accepted. 11. In view of this, the finding arrived at by the learned court below in respect of Madan is set aside. No flnding is required with respect to other accused Parmendra since after his death, appeal has already abated. '4- 12.
Decision
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and '::,'fr order of sentence u/s 323 IPC passed by the court below ^ii^ as it relates '^^^'•y' to present appellant Madan is set aside. ,,s!sy '^'^' ?- lj':-^il . l. Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge '<{""'. •e- Rao :/'• •rt